Tag Archives: supreme court decision

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

And boy is the left not happy about it.

Voting in elections – local, State and national, is a right of every American citizen, 18 years of age and older. There is no test or licensing process one has to go through. That’s how we know it’s a right.

Well check that – kind of. The Second Amendment confirms the right to own and carry a firearm, yet look how many hoops one has to jump through in many States just own, much less carry one.

The Constitution, and by extension, the various levels of government, does not confer or bestow these rights, but merely confirm that which are our natural rights. In fact, voting is so important that it is covered in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and most recently in the 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971. It was the second to last time the Constitution was “legally” amended.

So why bring up the subject of voting rights? Because, as many of us know, the United States supreme Court recently handed the democrat party a potentially crushing bit of news. In Ohio, dead people will no longer be allowed to vote.

Okay, it’s a little more than that. In a typical 5-4 decision, the high court affirmed that it is indeed constitutional for the State of Ohio to clean up its voter rolls. read more

by: the Common Constitutionalist

At this point, most of the arguments both for and against same-sex marriage have been set forth. Many of us conservatives hold to the view that government should not be involved in marriage in the first place – yet here we are.

I’ve also heard the same refrain from practically everyone on the right, me included at times. The defeatist attitude of “we can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” or “what can we do now – it’s over, now that the Supreme Court has ruled.” And the ever popular: “it’s now the law of the land.”

But evidently, that’s not how the left viewed it, for marriage between a man and woman has been the convention and the de facto “law of the land” literally forever. That didn’t stop them and shouldn’t stop us.

Although the mainstream media loves to say that polls show the American people favor same-sex marriage, I don’t buy that for a minute. I know how polls are so easily manipulated to achieve a desired result. If it was so popular, why did states refused to put it on so many ballots?

In fact 31 states voted in favor of a constitutional amendment or state referendum defining marriage between a man and a woman or, like Hawaii, at the very least, limited marriage to one each of the opposite sex, which is the same thing, I guess.

Virtually every state that put the question up for a vote of the actual voters, voted against same-sex marriage. So there is no great groundswell of support for it and never has been. read more

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The ruling is in and the debates have begun. It’s a great day for the left. It’s a great day for both parties. Democrats got what they wanted and Republicans now do not have to legislate. It’s a win-win.

But at least some on the right aren’t happy. Judge Andrew Napolitano’s reaction on Fox News was stunned amazement. “What [Roberts] did was to suggest that plain, ordinary English words, which are not ambiguous in their meaning, somehow to six of the justices in the majority are ambiguous and therefore they can interpret them however they want,” said Napolitano.

“If they had followed the law, this would’ve been a very simple case. The language in the statute was very clear – and if they had interpreted the language the way it was written, the government would have lost,” said Heritage Foundations Hans von Spakovsky.

Twila Brase of the Citizens Council for Health Freedom said that “Without the rule of law, it becomes the rule of power – all up to interpretation. Claims of intent and outside interpretations of intent will now rule, not the actual words written in the law. When we start allowing the loose interpretation of law based on after-the-fact claims of intent, the foundation of the rule of law crumbles.”

There are many more losers than winners that will come from this decision. Obviously we conservatives, who have been warning of the pitfalls lost. The American people are huge losers as they will see care decline and prices skyrocket. The rule of law lost and certainly the Constitution. We voters also lost, for its apparent that no other branch of government will stand up and challenge the black robed oligarchs. read more

by: the Common Constitutionalist

You may have heard about the 8-1 Supreme Court decision regarding a discrimination lawsuit brought by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Samantha Elauf against Abercrombie and Fitch stores.

Ms. Elauf is a Muslim who wears a Hijab, a black headscarf, which A & F said would clash with the companies “Look Policy,” and thus did not hire her.

In 2013 the retailer confirmed to Business Insider that it doesn’t sell black clothing and “discourages its employees from wearing black.” It’s evidently well-known throughout A & F that CEO Michael Jeffries doesn’t care for black.

“Mike hates the color, and so we’re not supposed to wear it at work,” an anonymous employee told Business Insider.

A statement provided by the company read: “Abercrombie & Fitch does not sell black clothing and discourages wearing it at our home office and in our stores, because we are a casual lifestyle brand and feel black clothing is formal. We have nothing against black clothing and feel it is perfectly appropriate for things like tuxedos.”

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that “Justice Scalia, writing for seven justices, said Ms. Elauf did not have to make a specific request for a religious accommodation to obtain relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring.” read more

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

I hope this is exactly what has happened. Following the unbelievably bad decision doled out by Chief John Souter-Roberts and the other hacks on the bench, I believe conservatives will rise up & turn out in mass this November. They must!

Shockingly, I’ve already heard more than once today, Justice Roberts apologists trying to explain that Roberts is conservative but just got these 2 decisions (Arizona & Obamacare) wrong.

BULL CRAP!! You are the Chief Justice of the most powerful court in the world. He can’t and I contend, he didn’t “get in wrong”, in his eyes.

There are 2 likely scenarios presently floating around to explain his actions.

Scenario number 1, is that he has always been a moderate to liberal judge and was appointed by a like-minded individual, George W. Bush. Number 1A is that “W” insisted he did not have a litmus test for appointment to the court. Roberts was asked no hard questions and could better hide his true positions.

I think this is a mistake. The president should have a “litmus test”. How else would one find out how a judge will rule. I certainly would have a test. What the heck is so wrong with knowing where a candidate stands before potentially making a permanent mistake. After all, these are lifetime appointments.

It would be like hiring an employee with a wholly inadequate interview, and once he is hired, he makes all the wrong decisions, but you may never fire him, nor may you ever leave the company. You are stuck with him in perpetuity.

Scenario number 2 has been put forth today. It is that Roberts was somehow pressured from without to change his position. Could be. If that’s the case, I have even less respect for him than I did. I believe this scenario to be unlikely.

How, after all this time of hearing the tax is not a tax but a penalty, has it magically become a tax again. Simple. Like activists do, they just change the language. Simply reinterpret the penalty clause so it’s now a tax. Roberts all but comes out and states that the congress didn’t realize it was a tax when they labelled it a penalty. Wow, Congress sure is stupid.

Thank heavens the Chief Justice was there to set them straight. The problem is that congress knew full well Obamacare wouldn’t have passed to begin with if the penalty was called a tax. Obama said it himself on several occasions. That’s why they labelled it a penalty in the first place. Those who crafted this piece of crap knew exactly what they were doing. and how to properly word it.

So now the precedent has been set. Congress may now tax us for virtually anything they please in conjunction with the health of the citizenry. And, of course, everything can be said to involve our health. The food you consume, the car you drive, where you live, etc.

Keep Smiling Comrade Roberts

But, you say, we can elect those who promise to repeal Obamacare in full. That will take care of it, right? Only partially. The law would be no more, but the Supreme Court taxing precedent cannot be undone without the court, itself, reversing it. What are the odds of that happening?

Don’t listen to the inside-the-beltway apologists like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, or even Erick Erickson. There was no lesson learned, no victory of any kind.

If you want to learn something, read the dissenting opinion of the 4 justices that stood up for us and more importantly, took their job seriously and did the only thing they were appointed to do, stood up for the Constitution.

Thank you Justices Sam Alido, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas & I can’t believe I’m doing this, but also Anthony Kennedy. We had this won but for Roberts.

Never thought I’d say this either but, GO MITT!

Then we need to “repeal & replace” everyone in the republican leadership, both in the House and Senate.

I’d like to speak of the Obamacare legacy. Not what Obamacare will do to just healthcare, but the affect it will have on virtually every aspect of American life.

I personally know people; friends, colleagues and coworkers that will be adversely affected if Obamacare is allowed to withstand Supreme Court scrutiny. Adversely affected. That’s an understatement. How about crushed.

We here the liberals decry how unfair the current free-market (had to gag a little there. Our healthcare is far from free-market) system is. The poor are literally left to die in the streets. We all know this to be bunk, but it’s pretty close to the way they describe it.

We will all be adversely affected, but the ones the grand designers claim to care about, those currently on Medicare & Medicaid, will suffer the most.

Medicare is, of course, government controlled medical care for the elderly & Medicaid mainly for the poor.

For those on Medicare, there will be death panels. Oh, they won’t be called that, but rest assured, or should I say, Rest in Peace, there will a panel of government bureaucrats to decide whether you deserve that new hip or pacemaker. Old Granny, at 85, can’t benefit from an MRI like that 30-year-old taxpayer or that 40-year-old would benefit more from a cancer screening than Gramps, at 80.

The poor, currently on Medicaid, will of course get the shaft due to rationing. They will get what’s left over from the productive members of society. This is of course a form of eugenics. If you are unable to prove that you are of value to the collective, you will naturally be last in line for medical care, as are the elderly.

Not a very rosy picture, I’ll grant you, but I believe that if we continue down this path, it will be the logical end.

This is just one of the reasons this Supreme Court decision is so paramount.

If the High Court bestows constitutional precedence on Obamacare, there is no end to the government’s meddling in our everyday affairs.

Why couldn’t the government just tell us that we have to buy broccoli or brussel sprouts or some other nasty vegetable and must consume them daily, in the name of improving our health?

A whole new government department could be formed. Think of all the new jobs. It could be called The Major Intergovernmental Council of Health Education for Life Long Excellence or MICHELLE. There would be an army of agents similar to the electric company meter readers. They would travel the countryside making sure we all had our proper intake of good food and, of course, all the while, keeping a trained eye out for contraband like salt or a black market cheeseburger hidden under the mattress.

The president could appoint a new government fast food oversight board. After all, it is said that fast food is making us fat and killing us all. This will surely put a strain on the health care system. Maybe the board recommends to the president that fast food restaurants simply be closed.

Another board could be responsible for alcohol and tobacco coupons. Those who consume these substances will have to present a coupon giving them permission to buy the substance. Of course, the coupons will be rationed. We wouldn’t want anyone to abuse them. That would put a strain on the health care system.

Again, look at all the jobs that are being created, but I digress.

This is what can happen with a simple Supreme Court ruling. If the Supreme Court rules that the government can force us to purchase health insurance why could they not force us to purchase anything?

Once the Supreme Court rules in favor or against anything it sets precedence. Once this precedence has been set the Constitution is all but thrown out the window. Any subsequent case that comes before the Supreme Court will simply cite that precedent as proof of its constitutionality.

Ask yourself just how far this could go? Why could they not just start demanding more control over us?

Why could we not be told what car we had to buy or what house or where we must go on vacation? Surely having too many children would put a strain on the health care system, not to mention the school system, the food supply, et al.

The government must also concern itself with not only our health but also the health of the planet. They wouldn’t want us burning all those fossil fuels to heat and cool our homes. Naturally we would be required to purchase smart meters and smart thermostats so they could control the heating, cooling and electrical use of each house.

It would be great! We could have rolling blackouts just like Venezuela.

Now just sit back and imagine the utopia. Life will be easy. You’ll never have to make another decision again. Everything will be taken care of and we will be wanting for nothing. Kind of like being in boot camp all over again.

Life in Utopian America:

We will grow up being told what foods to eat, what school to attend and what clothes to wear.

We will be told what college to attend, what our vocation will be and how much money we will be allowed to make.

Prior to starting our new job we will be required to give one or two years of community service in order to help pay for our free college education and for the good of the collective.

We will then be free to marry a woman, a man, or perhaps our pet hamster. We will have no more than 2.4 perfect children. Of course, if they’re not perfect, we can always abort them. Don’t worry about that whole parenting thing, the schools will take care of that.

We will work at our preselected vocation for a number of years until such time as our usefulness to the collective is exhausted.

At that time we will be given our choice of residence at a lovely nearby government rest home.

When another board decides it is too costly to care for us we will simply be given a pain pill and asked to go sit in the corner and die with dignity.